Delete a file?

BOOMSHAKER · Nov 9, 2006

Sounds easy right? Not for me! I have one file in my pc I am trying to delete and can't.

I down load music and as soon as I burn the cd I go back and delete the songs. Well I have a file in my pc that has 0kb's associated with it. It's just a name on this file. Usually I just search and right click on the song and click delete. However this is the very first file in years when I right click on it, no delete option comes up. It's not a big deal BUT it was a brand new P Diddy song and I feel someone put something in this file in order to see who downloaded it thats why i can't delete it. (thats my guess) My question is, since I can not right click on it is there another way to delete this? I tried to highlite it and then try the delete under the file/edit tabs but NOPE. Can't do it. It's driving me bananas! HELP PLEASE!!!!

Kaiser · Nov 9, 2006

BOOMSHAKER said:
Sounds easy right? Not for me! I have one file in my pc I am trying to delete and can't.

I down load music and as soon as I burn the cd I go back and delete the songs. Well I have a file in my pc that has 0kb's associated with it. It's just a name on this file. Usually I just search and right click on the song and click delete. However this is the very first file in years when I right click on it, no delete option comes up. It's not a big deal BUT it was a brand new P Diddy song and I feel someone put something in this file in order to see who downloaded it thats why i can't delete it. (thats my guess) My question is, since I can not right click on it is there another way to delete this? I tried to highlite it and then try the delete under the file/edit tabs but NOPE. Can't do it. It's driving me bananas! HELP PLEASE!!!!

Do you have Simple File Sharing on, and was this file copied to that location under a different user?
If not what is the name of the file with the extension? (Like "pdiddy.mp3" for example). If you cannot see the extension in Windows Explorer (My Computer), Go to TOOLS/FOLDER OPTIONS/VIEW.

Put a check mark next to "Show Hidden Files Folders".
Then Uncheck "Hide Extensions For Known File Types".
Click "Apply", then click the "Apply To All Folders Button".

You will then be able to see the whole file with extension. Get back to me with your results.

And no, it is not something to track who downloaded this file.

OuchThatHurts · Nov 9, 2006

when i had this, i fixed it by moving everything out of that folder except that file (which won't let you move it anyway) and then renaming the folder that it's in to a name that's 8 characters or less (like from "Music Files" to just "music")

and then delete the folder from a dos prompt with the rd /r command like

rd /r c:\myfiles\music

Might not help you but it worked for me.

Kaiser · Nov 10, 2006

OuchThatHurts said:
when i had this, i fixed it by moving everything out of that folder except that file (which won't let you move it anyway) and then renaming the folder that it's in to a name that's 8 characters or less (like from "Music Files" to just "music")

and then delete the folder from a dos prompt with the rd /r command like

rd /r c:\myfiles\music

Might not help you but it worked for me.

Dos prompt? did you actually say that...lol.. just kidding... Cmd prompt is the shell in NT.

His problem is that it is not showing up correctly in the shell extension from what it sounds like to me. In other words, he right clicks it and 'delete' does not show up correctly in the context menu.

Although I was not there for it, your problem sounds very familiar. It sounds like it was the Explorer limitation of 255 character length string for a path on certain calls/handles. So for instance:

C:\Documents and Settings\Username\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\

Equals 75 characters (I think) as it is, but this is just an example. At that point only 75 more characters deep can Explorer acurately handle the delete call alot of the time. I believe this is alot larger now in Vista, which RTMed yesterday especially for 64 bit OS versions.

If this was the case you would need to shorten up the root or one of the first folder's path to allow for deletion.

OuchThatHurts · Nov 10, 2006

You might be right Kais. Not sure. It was a while ago. It was an MP3 file that showed up as 0 kb's. I couldn't delete it within the shell. I couldn't even delete the folder it was in until I shortened the name and went to a (yes, my bad) a COMMAND prompt... lol. What does windows call their file structure now? I still see C:\, D:\, I still see 8.3 naming conventions... I'm not busting your balls, I'm just curious. Even on a windows XP installation CD, every file is 8.3

Unix uses EXT2 FS, then there's OS/2's HPFS, and then we have windows. Is it NTFS? FAT32? either? And how is a volume mounted in windows? Can you mount a directory as a volume (for instance, /var)?

I'm one confused son of a bitch!

p.s. You know I just know the old shit... not all this new fancy stuff

Kaiser · Nov 10, 2006

OuchThatHurts said:
What does windows call their file structure now? I still see C:\, D:\, I still see 8.3 naming conventions... I'm not busting your balls, I'm just curious. Even on a windows XP installation CD, every file is 8.3

Unix uses EXT2 FS, then there's OS/2's HPFS, and then we have windows. Is it NTFS? FAT32? either? And how is a volume mounted in windows? Can you mount a directory as a volume (for instance, /var)?

I'm one confused son of a bitch!

p.s. You know I just know the old shit... not all this new fancy stuff

Well, you have to understand that M$ had 2 very different operating systems. DOS based and NT based. DOS was first and allowed for lack of hardware speed, and ability. NT base was created after M$ realized that there were going to be limitations in future DOS based systems when it came to network infrastructure and hardware technology grew to allow for such a change. So they hired the engineer and designer of one of the best operating systems for infrastructures at the time which was VAX. Through this a whole new type of file system came about which was NTFS1. Now, after all of these years, we are up to NTFS6 which will still read NTFS1 partitions. Things like full disk and file/folder encryption, a sophisticated compression algorythm, the best, most granular security file/folder system in the industry topped off with the fastest I/O throughput for seek, security descriptor and transfer.
Yes you can mount a directory as a volume but it is not practiced that much because of the versatility of the file system in other areas like Dynamic Disks etc. Unix uses directory volume mapping because they did not originally use drive letters as descriptors.
As far as the Windows XP installation CD being 8.3, this is for manufacturers originally, to use a DOS based setup of their own to install the OS on a new system. You will find it will probably be the same thing with Vista install DVDs because for one, it simply works. 8.3 can house can hold just aboutg every file in the system level, let alone seek, access and runtime gets sped up by not having long file names. Granted the speed is an old theory, that you would probably not notice a difference with today's hardware.
Drive letters will probably be around for a long time, mainly because people are used to them. The next file system which will be a variant of a database may not. It will be called WinFS. I personally do not like the idea of WinFS yet, but it's not showing my age. I just do not like it because at this time the recovery techniques for individual files is painful at best, IF it recovers at all. But, they would not push this out until it was tightened up as far as I would imagine.

BTW, Unix uses a whole shit load of other file systems including FAT, FAT32, & CIFS which was created by Microsoft. (Common Internet File System).

Hehe, you know what I find as one of the biggest jokes? MACintosh having commercials about how it is so much better than a PC. LMAO, MAC switched to PC architecture a few years back so in essence, they are a Linux based PC.

OuchThatHurts · Nov 10, 2006

Kaiser said:
Hehe, you know what I find as one of the biggest jokes? MACintosh having commercials about how it is so much better than a PC. LMAO, MAC switched to PC architecture a few years back so in essence, they are a Linux based PC.

I heard that Mac was using Intel processors. I just figured "well, it's about time" - after all, everything in the box was PC compatible anyway except the RISC processor.

Why do I feel like I have to fight against M$ ? It's sort of like a sense of power I get when I use my linux box. It even took me a while to get sold on the idea of Windows servers instead of Novell (well basically I had to)

Novell had NDS which M$ decided was a pretty good idea and came up with ADS. I guess everyone takes what they like from anyone else.

Kaiser · Nov 10, 2006

I don't know why, but there are a few people out there are still fighting the power like you. Alot of people feel uncomfortable supporting the giant sometimes because of dominance fear. I agree with you on Microsoft using other company ideas, redesigning it and making it their own. They've done that their whole existence. But what I do have to say is that, they have successfully made 99% of the ideas better and more refined. I also think they have the ability to make software 'work' in our lives and integrate with people's mindset more than any other product. For this they started an audience and it has grown ever since. Point is, with our young children going to school today, computers are going to be their first language, and their spoken language will be second.
Another point is, there are plenty of businesses out there that run ALL Windows in their infrastrucure and have no Unix boxes whatsoever. I'd like to know just how many Unix based companies out there, do not have a single Windows box. Probably next to none.
I hope everyone understands I am not one who is controlled by M$ products. I do think outside the box. Unfortunately, outside the box is not a better product at this time, and surely is not as much of a profit center. There was a time when I could do alot more on a Franklin, Apple, & Commodore (from PET to the C128) than I could on an all M$ based PC. This is not to say that Commodore didn't use a highly modified version of M$ BASIC though. It was quite different. As a matter of fact I used a Commodore 64 when I got caught. I would be extinct if I stuck to their technology. I guess it is a matter of grow and run with the times or you will lose your edge and the technology race. I don't fight the power anymore, I embrace it and let it make a shit load of money for me